KRISHNAN Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention pressed on behalf of the 18th defendant appellant was, that the execution of the final decree in the case for partition, in so far as it relates to the realisation of mesne profits, is barred by limitation. The decree was passed on December 17, 1955, and being unregistered, the period of limitation for its execution expired on December 17,1958; but the respondent, who is one of the decree holders, pleaded that under S.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act, 1956 (Act 3 of 1956) and under S.20 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 (Act 31 of 1958), a cumulative period of twelve months, during which the making of an application for execution was prohibited by the Acts, has to be excluded. For the respondent to succeed, it is enough to exclude one period of six months, under either of the Acts.

(2.) I am of the opinion, that the order under appeal has to be sustained, on the provisions in S.3 of Act 3 of 1956, the relevant parts of which may be extracted :

(3.) It was next argued, that the appellant might well waive the benefit of these Acts, as he had done, by not availing himself of the provisions for making payments in instalments, and that therefore, to permit the respondent to rely on the above provisions in the Act, would be in effect, to force them on the appellant against his will. The question for decision is only whether the respondent is entitled to the exclusion of time from the period of limitation under S.9 of Act 3 of 1956. This will depend on the true construction of the provisions of S.3, and not on whether a debtor can waive the benefit of the provisions of the Act or not. On the finding that the appellant is an agriculturist which was not challenged here and on the interpretation of S.3 of Act 3 of 1956, I am of the view, that the respondent is entitled to the exclusion of time, in computing the period of limitation.